Differences In Gastrointestinal Safety Profiles Among Novel Oral Anticoagulants: Evidence From A Network Meta-Analysis

• Main Authors: Guo WQ, Chen XH, Tian XY, Li L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dove Medical Press 2019-10-01
• Series: Clinical Epidemiology
• Subjects: new oral anticoagulant; gastrointestinal bleeding; network meta-analysis
• Online Access: https://www.dovepress.com/differences-in-gastrointestinal-safety-profiles-among-novel-oral-antic-peer-reviewed-article-CLEP

Wen-Qin Guo,1 Xie-Hui Chen,1 Xiao-Yuan Tian,1 Lang Li2 1Department of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Lang LiDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning 530021, People’s Republic of ChinaTel [phone]Fax [phone]Email [e-mail]: There is no consensus at present regarding the differences in the risk of GI bleeding across various NOAC regimens. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding after different NOAC regimens.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov and Clinicaltrialresults.org were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing gastrointestinal bleeding of all NOAC regimens from inception to January 2018. The primary endpoint was major gastrointestinal (MGI) bleeding. The meta-regression was performed to access the association between the MGI bleeding events and mortality. The network meta-analysis was carried out with the Bayesian random-effect model.Results: A total of 25 RCTs, including 139,392 patients, were identified. Meta-regression analysis showed that MGI bleeding was correlated with fatal bleeding events (odds ratios [OR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–2.77], P=0.015). The network meta-analysis results showed that compared to the conventional regimens, rivaroxaban was associated with increased risk of MGI bleeding (OR, 1.37; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.00–1.85), but not the apixaban (OR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.53–1.07]), edoxaban (OR, 0.86; 95%CrI, 0.52–1.18) and dabigatran etexilate (OR, 1.22; 95% CrI, 0.82–1.69). Compared to rivaroxaban, apixaban (OR, 0.56; 95% CrI, 0.35–0.88) and edoxaban (OR, 0.62; 95% CrI, 0.35–0.96) showed a significantly lower risk of MGI bleeding. Apixaban had the highest probability of being the safest option with regard to the risk of MGI bleeding (89.1%), followed by edoxaban (77.4%), conventional therapy (51.4%), dabigatran etexilate (23.8%) and rivaroxaban (8.3%).Conclusion: The risk of GI bleeding significantly varies among different NOAC regimens, and evidence shows that apixaban and edoxaban had the most favorable MGI bleeding safety profile, while rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate were the least safe.Keywords: new oral anticoagulant, gastrointestinal bleeding, network meta-analysis